Comments on: What it REALLY Means to Think Outside the Box http://frumpyhausfrau.com/business/what-it-really-means-to-think-outside-the-box/ Defining True Success in Business and Family Tue, 08 May 2012 22:08:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Laura http://frumpyhausfrau.com/business/what-it-really-means-to-think-outside-the-box/comment-page-1/#comment-119 Laura Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:58:30 +0000 http://frumpyhausfrau.com/?p=204#comment-119 I don't think creative thinking precludes analysis. In fact, I think that creative thinking is pretty well useless unless it builds on analysis and utilizes other solutions FIRST. It is more of a matter of taking the problem solving process one step further, and examining more options within the analytical problem. So out of the box thinking might mean using brute force to solve a problem, in a way no one else thought possible, or it might mean reaching conclusions about possible courses of action from the analysis that others did not consider. Laura I don’t think creative thinking precludes analysis. In fact, I think that creative thinking is pretty well useless unless it builds on analysis and utilizes other solutions FIRST. It is more of a matter of taking the problem solving process one step further, and examining more options within the analytical problem.

So out of the box thinking might mean using brute force to solve a problem, in a way no one else thought possible, or it might mean reaching conclusions about possible courses of action from the analysis that others did not consider.

Laura

]]> By: Mitchell Allen http://frumpyhausfrau.com/business/what-it-really-means-to-think-outside-the-box/comment-page-1/#comment-117 Mitchell Allen Sun, 18 Jan 2009 06:57:04 +0000 http://frumpyhausfrau.com/?p=204#comment-117 While I agree with you about the definition, I believe that there is one ironic thing about creative thinking: it has become its own box. Consider problem X. If the solution, Y, is non-trivial, it may require one of three approaches in order to be reached. 1. Brute-force 2. Analytical 3. Creative I think it is important to at least consider brute force, which does not necessarily mean that every known path must be examined. In fact, brute force can be elegantly simple. I can email a dozen colleagues, asking them if they know how to solve problem X. Henry Ford was good at this type of brute-force problem solving. Another type of brute-force attack on a problem is to eliminate it! This sounds flippant but, suppose the problem involved physical or chemical properties. Eliminating the offending element may solve the problem. This is exactly what happened with the vacuum tubes used in MIT's Whirlwind computer in the 1950s. Sometimes, brute force can be ruled out by analyzing the the scope of the decision tree for a problem. If problem X has three or more independent variables, analysis may be better suited as an approach for reaching a solution. It is during the analysis of the problem that creative thinking asserts itself. That's because analysis is structured (or should be!) and the creative brain readily sees patterns within that structure. Because of the ease in which the patterns are discerned, unwary thinkers may delude themselves into perceiving a sense of progress along an uncertain path. Patterns are subjective. It may be possible to quantify the creative process, but such capability does not automatically confer a de facto secret path from problem X to solution Y. The only danger that I see is that, when confronted with a complex problem, we may automatically choose to think creatively - at the expense of fully understanding what it is we are attempting to solve. We may do this because we "accept" that innovations derive from this type of thinking. In so doing, we risk re-inventing the wheel if, indeed, problem X has already been solved by someone else. Cheers, Mitch While I agree with you about the definition, I believe that there is one ironic thing about creative thinking:

it has become its own box.

Consider problem X. If the solution, Y, is non-trivial, it may require one of three approaches in order to be reached.
1. Brute-force
2. Analytical
3. Creative

I think it is important to at least consider brute force, which does not necessarily mean that every known path must be examined. In fact, brute force can be elegantly simple. I can email a dozen colleagues, asking them if they know how to solve problem X. Henry Ford was good at this type of brute-force problem solving.

Another type of brute-force attack on a problem is to eliminate it! This sounds flippant but, suppose the problem involved physical or chemical properties. Eliminating the offending element may solve the problem. This is exactly what happened with the vacuum tubes used in MIT’s Whirlwind computer in the 1950s.

Sometimes, brute force can be ruled out by analyzing the the scope of the decision tree for a problem. If problem X has three or more independent variables, analysis may be better suited as an approach for reaching a solution.

It is during the analysis of the problem that creative thinking asserts itself. That’s because analysis is structured (or should be!) and the creative brain readily sees patterns within that structure.

Because of the ease in which the patterns are discerned, unwary thinkers may delude themselves into perceiving a sense of progress along an uncertain path. Patterns are subjective. It may be possible to quantify the creative process, but such capability does not automatically confer a de facto secret path from problem X to solution Y.

The only danger that I see is that, when confronted with a complex problem, we may automatically choose to think creatively – at the expense of fully understanding what it is we are attempting to solve. We may do this because we “accept” that innovations derive from this type of thinking. In so doing, we risk re-inventing the wheel if, indeed, problem X has already been solved by someone else.

Cheers,

Mitch

]]>